Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Pearly Penile Papules

Pearly Penile Papules

 * Image: Out of respect for users, this image is not presented here since it is a clear representation of the head of a human male penis. While Wikipedia is not censored, this is done as a courtesy. To see the image, please see File:Hirsuties papillaris coronae glandis.jpg.
 * Caption: Hirsuties papillaris genitalis on a circumcised human penis.
 * Reason: Beautiful image quality, perfect example of the article material. Extremely helpful.
 * Articles this image appears in: Pearly_penile_papules
 * Creator: de:User:Ernesto Che Guevara


 * Support as nominator --Communist47 (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fixed the formatting on this page and, as a courtesy, removed the image, but included its link. Penises are not the thing I expect (or hope) to see when I come to FPC, so you will have to follow the link to see the image. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job, Wade.  Zoo Fari  00:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Remember this is a featured picture candidate!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs)
 * Support I've seen this article in its use on the article, and I was surprised with the very high quality. Great FA candidate.  hmwith  τ   14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Harsh lighting, blown whites, and I don't like seeing the shadow on the background wall. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 14:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I fail to see anything exceptional in terms of technical quality, beauty or EV rather than the subject itself. Also, I wouldn't like to see a diseased penis (or a liver or a anus) in the main page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'd like to point out that the penis in question is definetly NOT diseased, as you would know if you had read the article, but more importantly, an FP doesn't need to be on the main page. Some FA's, like on porn-stars or overly technical subjects, are never on the main page, for example. Communist47 (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the word is not accurate. I did read the article, which talks about lesions and clinical skin condition which I can only interpret as an abnormal or non-desired situation. Anyway, the exact definiton of disease is not the main point here. The way I see it (and I may be wrong, of course) the nomination would lose most of its interest if the subject were a carrot or a turnip and would only pass if its quality, beauty or EV were absolutely exceptional. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Except I think it's worth noting that unlike a carrot or turnip, getting a high-res photo of a papuled penis isn't exactly the easiest task. Communist47 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Many thanks to Wadester16 for hiding the image from this page. Considering I first came aross this nomination while at work, I owe him one!  As to the image itself, I agree with Wadester16 that it's a little harsh and the shadow is offputting.  Personally though, what kills it for me is that I would prefer the subject itself to be a little cleaner.  To avoid any lengthy discussions about whether or not it's appropriate to make it "artificially" clean, I will point out now that I have considered this point already, and have concluded that, as most people bathe regularly, having a cleaner specimen is neither abnormal nor unexpected.  I get the impression that this was a snapshot without any "preparation", as it were, which I think would have been appropriate in this case.  I agree that it's an interesting subject, though, and not one you would normally find illustrated, so I might support another try.   Mae din \talk 06:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How would preperation be appropriate? It's a high-res zoom shot of a penis. It's going to have smegma on it. It would lose its encyclopedic value if the penis was completely clean. Communist47 (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I happen to disagree. As I explained, I don't think it's unusual or abnormal for a penis to be regularly washed.  I don't see how it's unencyclopaedic for the subject to have been photographed after a shower, instead of before.   Mae din \talk 06:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just trying to be practical. Tho I am getting yelled at a bit about it. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

MER-C 10:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)